From shijiapan at cmu.edu Thu Mar 8 14:03:12 2018 From: shijiapan at cmu.edu (Shijia Pan) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 05:03:12 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Call for Papers: The 2018 ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018) Message-ID: [Apologies if you got multiple copies of this email.] =================================================================== Call for Papers: The 2018 ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018) **** ACM SenSys 2018 **** Shenzhen, China November 4-7, 2018 http://sensys.acm.org/2018/ Dear Colleagues, The ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018) is the premier computer systems conference focused on the architecture, design, implementation, and performance of networked sensing systems, sensor-oriented data modeling, and analytics, in addition to sensor-enabled applications. ACM SenSys brings together academic, industry, and government professionals to a single-track, highly selective forum, that takes a broad view on the areas of computing that are relevant to the future of sensor systems. Topics of interests include, but are not limited to, the following: - New platforms and hardware designs for networked sensor systems - Systems software, including operating systems and network stacks - Low power operation, energy harvesting, and energy management - Applications, and deployment experiences (such as smart cities, wellness and healthcare sensing, and industrial process monitoring) - Resource-efficient machine learning for embedded and mobile platforms - Wireless media access control, network, and transport-layer protocol designs - New communication paradigms for ubiquitous connectivity - Innovations in learning algorithms and models for sensor perception and understanding - Mobile and pervasive systems, including personal wearable devices, drones, and robots - Sensing, actuation, and control - System services such as time and location estimation - Data management and analytics, including quality, integrity, and trustworthiness - Learning, adaptation, and autonomy in cyber-physical systems - Heterogeneous collaborative sensing, including human-robot sensor systems - Fault-tolerance, reliability, and verification - Security and privacy in sensor-enabled applications and systems We invite technical papers describing original ideas, ground-breaking results, and real-world experiences involving innovative sensor systems. Successful submissions will explain why the topic is relevant to a vision of the future of sensing systems. Submissions will be judged on originality, significance, clarity, relevance, and correctness. In addition to citing relevant, published work, authors must cite and relate their submissions to relevant prior publications of their own. Ethical approval for experiments with human subjects should be demonstrated as part of the submission. **** Important Dates **** - Paper Registration and Abstract: April 1, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Paper Submission Deadline: April 8, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Notification of Paper Acceptance: July 20, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Paper Acceptance Notification: 20th July 2018 GMT. - Camera-Ready Deadline: 20th Sept 2018 GMT. Note: These are hard deadlines. No extension will be granted. For detailed information about the program and submission guideline, please visit http://sensys.acm.org/2018/. **************************************** General Chairs: Lin Zhang (Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute), Pei Zhang (Carnegie Mellon University) Program Chairs: Tian He (University of Minnesota), Nic Lane (University of Oxford) **************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Fri Mar 9 11:16:30 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 11:16:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair change Message-ID: <20180309101630.GU89741@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, as announced, my co-chairs of amazingly many years, Sander Steffann, will be stepping down as a WG chair at the next RIPE meeting. Our WG chair selection policy is described here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selection-process according to this, we'll spend a few minutes at the next APWG session in Marseilles to select a new co-chair. To avoid lengthy rounds of introduction at the meeting, I want to ask for volunteers here on the list - please step forward if you want to take up this work, and introduce yourself on why you think you're a good candidate and what your plans for the WG are for the next two years (or longer). A short recap of the WG chairs duties: - chair the APWG session at the RIPE meetings (so generally it is expected that both co-chairs can attend most RIPE meetings and feel halfway confident talking on stage and moderate a discussion) - read - and if necessary, moderate - the APWG mailing list (thus, fluency in written English is necessary, and while discussions are going on, some amount time spent at least every few days) - help policy proposers bring their policy proposal through the PDP (answering questions, helping with the wording of proposed text, spending some time discussing 'next steps' for a proposal) - judge consensus at the end of discussion and review phases according to our policy development process (usually done by both co-chairs together, unless a conflict of interest appears) - help shape the format of RIPE meetings together with all the other WG chairs and the RIPE PC - by mailing list and by attending the "WG chair lunch" on RIPE meeting Thursdays - see also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692 A definite plus for an APWG chair is "operational experience with these pesky numbers" - either by operating the address management side (LIR) of an Internet Service Provider or Enterprise network, or by being an address broker, etc. Sander and I have spoken to a few of you who would make good chairs already - but ultimately, it's up the working group to decide. So even if you have spoken to us privately before, please speak up now. So, come forward, dear candidates and make yourself known! :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ebais at a2b-internet.com Fri Mar 9 15:14:33 2018 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:14:33 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] FW: WG chair change In-Reply-To: References: <20180309101630.GU89741@Space.Net> <615EAE6B-2D5D-4657-A6BA-EAAB34E62093@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: Hi Gert, Sander & AP-WG members, Thank you for the email and I would like to formally put my name in the hat. For those that don't know me personally, my name is Erik Bais, Dutch, I'm 45, married for 16 year with my wife Wilhelmina and we have 2 sons. I'm the owner of a Dutch ISP named A2B Internet and I'm one of the co-founders of the IPv4 broker : Prefix Broker. I've lived most of my life in The Netherlands and as a family, we lived for almost a year in the UAE (Dubai) in 2008/2009, when I worked for a US based system integrator and I've worked in Germany for a US based company in the 90's for a year. I have a been working in the ISP community since the 2000. And started A2B Internet in 2010 in The Netherlands. In our work as a connectivity ISP, we started to request AS numbers and IP space for customers in order to get them migrated to our network and while doing so, we noticed some things that needed improvement in the AP policies. That is how it all got started ... I've been the author of the following proposals that have been accepted by the community: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-02 : Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI # co-author together with Jordi https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-04 : Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members # Services WG - allowing PI space holders and Legacy space holders the option for RPKI certification. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-02 : Allow IPv4 PI transfer https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-12 : Allow IPv6 Transfers https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-13 : Allow AS Number Transfers https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 : RIPE Resource Transfer Policies And I've been quite active on the discussions on the mailinglist and in the GM's. Besides the various presentations about the policies, I've also done some presentations in the plenary of the RIPE meetings and different WG's about various topics.. Examples are: https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/116/ : Naughty Port project about a different way of making a peering decision based on Network Naughty-ness using a rating system against DDOS's. https://ripe74.ripe.net/archives/video/119/ : IRR Filtering at IXP Route Servers https://ripe75.ripe.net/archives/video/165/ : Pre-Transfer Clean-Up of Abused Prefixes I really like the RIPE community and as an active policy proposer, I think I can say that I have been around the block on the PDP and can work with the sometimes harsh way of communication that a co-chair role has need to deal with in the heat of some discussions. I understand what it requires in effort from time to time and as I'm living in the Netherlands, it makes it easy to visit the Amsterdam RIPE office for me if needed. I hope that the community appreciates the transparent way of communicating and knowledge sharing that I like and that I will be selected as the co-chair for the AP-WG. Regards, Erik Bais From sean.stuart at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 14:29:21 2018 From: sean.stuart at gmail.com (Sean Stuart) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:29:21 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair change In-Reply-To: <20180309101630.GU89741@Space.Net> References: <20180309101630.GU89741@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert, Sander & AP-WG members, Thank you for the email, and I am volunteering to serve the working group. My name is Sean Stuart, and I have been working with enterprise and service provider networks for the last 20 years. My current role involves Internet peering, DNS root server placement, and IP address management. Wearing my IP management hat, I operate five LIR's under three RIR's, and follow the policy development process in all three regions. I am very familiar with the policy development process in RIPE, and appreciate the process and the work required to keep the process on track. I also bring a neutral perspective to the role, as neither my employer nor myself have any specific policy requests expected in the near future. My goal is to ensure that the working group is able to continue to develop policies that make sense to the organizations in the RIPE region for the next several years. I am familiar with the workload required, as well as the role of the WG chair in keeping discussions on track and civil when required. I hope to be able to serve the community as a WG chair. Thank you, Sean Stuart On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > as announced, my co-chairs of amazingly many years, Sander Steffann, will > be stepping down as a WG chair at the next RIPE meeting. > > Our WG chair selection policy is described here: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap > https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair- > selection-process > > according to this, we'll spend a few minutes at the next APWG session > in Marseilles to select a new co-chair. > > To avoid lengthy rounds of introduction at the meeting, I want to ask > for volunteers here on the list - please step forward if you want to > take up this work, and introduce yourself on why you think you're a > good candidate and what your plans for the WG are for the next two years > (or longer). > > A short recap of the WG chairs duties: > > - chair the APWG session at the RIPE meetings > (so generally it is expected that both co-chairs can attend most > RIPE meetings and feel halfway confident talking on stage and > moderate a discussion) > > - read - and if necessary, moderate - the APWG mailing list > (thus, fluency in written English is necessary, and while discussions > are going on, some amount time spent at least every few days) > > - help policy proposers bring their policy proposal through the PDP > (answering questions, helping with the wording of proposed text, > spending some time discussing 'next steps' for a proposal) > > - judge consensus at the end of discussion and review phases according > to our policy development process > (usually done by both co-chairs together, unless a conflict of interest > appears) > > - help shape the format of RIPE meetings together with all the other > WG chairs and the RIPE PC - by mailing list and by attending the > "WG chair lunch" on RIPE meeting Thursdays > > - see also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692 > > A definite plus for an APWG chair is "operational experience with these > pesky numbers" - either by operating the address management side (LIR) > of an Internet Service Provider or Enterprise network, or by being an > address broker, etc. > > > Sander and I have spoken to a few of you who would make good chairs already > - but ultimately, it's up the working group to decide. So even if you have > spoken to us privately before, please speak up now. > > So, come forward, dear candidates and make yourself known! :-) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- Thank you, Sean Stuart sean.stuart at gmail.com 571-969-5707 cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Fri Mar 16 12:48:44 2018 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:48:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We would like to make you aware of a policy proposal that is being discussed in the LACNIC community, called "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)". You can find the proposal here: https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en This is a global policy proposal, meaning that it would apply to all five RIRs. However, each RIR community would first need to ratify an identical version of the policy before it could be implemented. No such policy proposal has yet been submitted in our service region. We will let you know of any further developments. You can find more on the global policy development process here: https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process/ Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From gert at space.net Fri Mar 16 15:13:26 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:13:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 concluded (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316141326.GA89959@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification", is now in Concluding Phase. [..] > Any objection must be made by 13 February 2018 and must be supported by an explanation. > > If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. There was quite a bit of discussion in the Last Call, which is unusual, and led to some more discussions between Marco, Sander and me how to evaluate these. We've decided that there is rough consensus to go forward and implement the policy, because the discussions raised did not bring in new objections to the policy itself, or issues with the policy process being followed(*). So, the NCC will start implementing the proposal next week. That said, some good points were raised - Kai Siering reminded me that I need to be a bit less sloppy when summarizing objections raised - I should have spent a few more words pointing to the fact that the NCC's interpretation of the existing IPv6 PI policy has been brought up number of times (by the NCC RS) to the APWG, explaining why they interpret the "no sub-assignment" clause the way they are, and asking for guidance from the WG - which, at no point, brought up the response "single addresses by RA are good!" (so while the WG wasn't fully happy with the *outcome*, nobody challenged the *interpretation*) - Jordi Palet found a mismatch between IA and policy text, and there was discussion about interpretation of policy text, policy intent, and IA when in doubt. Which is, undoubtly, quite a burden for new applicants to figure out what "is OK" and "what is not OK" - so the NCC volunteered to write a guidance page with examples to help explain in more words and easier terms. Of course I'll expect the working group to scrutinize this page very thoroughly :-) - Jordi Palet also brought up the issue that the PDP does not have an "the WG chairs decide to extend the review phase" arrow in its state diagram - it does not. Formally, one would need to close the review phase, declare "not enough input", declare "the next version of the policy proposal has the same text, and we solicit input *again*", and start a new review phase. Which is lots of overhead, so we've been doing this ("this" being "extend a phase *if not enough input received*") for many years now. (Incidentially, the anti-abuse WG had to do the same thing for their current 2017-02 proposal - "not enough clear guidance to declare a result either way", thus, "extend") As soon as this is formally incorporated into the new policy text, I welcome a new round of discussion about the IPv6 PI policy (as stated in the review phase) - ideally, with no formal text to start with, but as a real *discussion* on "where do we want to go?". Formal policy text can come afterwards after there is some sort of rough agreement on the general direction. I'll reserve time for this on the agenda for Marseilles. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Fri Mar 16 15:18:23 2018 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:18:23 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en i will not snark about history i will not snark about history i will not snark about history i will not snark about history i will not snark about history From ebais at a2b-internet.com Fri Mar 16 15:20:03 2018 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:20:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7DC211EB-D6DC-4619-8C88-DD3B97B0FEAE@a2b-internet.com> The question that came to mind was ... Is the IANA transition done yet ? Good. Let's start another one ... /ponder ... ?On 16/03/2018, 12:49, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Marco Schmidt" wrote: Dear colleagues, We would like to make you aware of a policy proposal that is being discussed in the LACNIC community, called "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)". You can find the proposal here: https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en This is a global policy proposal, meaning that it would apply to all five RIRs. However, each RIR community would first need to ratify an identical version of the policy before it could be implemented. No such policy proposal has yet been submitted in our service region. We will let you know of any further developments. You can find more on the global policy development process here: https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process/ Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Mar 16 15:20:11 2018 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:20:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 concluded (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) In-Reply-To: <20180316141326.GA89959@Space.Net> References: <20180316141326.GA89959@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert, all, I agree with your summary, and also understand the point that is better to have "something" now and improve it. In fact, yesterday I expressed the same view in anti-abuse, even against my previous opinion that we should do it "right" in a single "step". Consequently, in view of improving this now "adopted" policy, this afternoon I will work on this a submit a possible improvement proposal to it. I think I will also consider sending a proposal for update this PDP detail. Thanks! Regards, Jordi ?-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering Fecha: viernes, 16 de marzo de 2018, 15:13 Para: Marco Schmidt CC: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 concluded (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Dear AP WG, On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification", is now in Concluding Phase. [..] > Any objection must be made by 13 February 2018 and must be supported by an explanation. > > If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. There was quite a bit of discussion in the Last Call, which is unusual, and led to some more discussions between Marco, Sander and me how to evaluate these. We've decided that there is rough consensus to go forward and implement the policy, because the discussions raised did not bring in new objections to the policy itself, or issues with the policy process being followed(*). So, the NCC will start implementing the proposal next week. That said, some good points were raised - Kai Siering reminded me that I need to be a bit less sloppy when summarizing objections raised - I should have spent a few more words pointing to the fact that the NCC's interpretation of the existing IPv6 PI policy has been brought up number of times (by the NCC RS) to the APWG, explaining why they interpret the "no sub-assignment" clause the way they are, and asking for guidance from the WG - which, at no point, brought up the response "single addresses by RA are good!" (so while the WG wasn't fully happy with the *outcome*, nobody challenged the *interpretation*) - Jordi Palet found a mismatch between IA and policy text, and there was discussion about interpretation of policy text, policy intent, and IA when in doubt. Which is, undoubtly, quite a burden for new applicants to figure out what "is OK" and "what is not OK" - so the NCC volunteered to write a guidance page with examples to help explain in more words and easier terms. Of course I'll expect the working group to scrutinize this page very thoroughly :-) - Jordi Palet also brought up the issue that the PDP does not have an "the WG chairs decide to extend the review phase" arrow in its state diagram - it does not. Formally, one would need to close the review phase, declare "not enough input", declare "the next version of the policy proposal has the same text, and we solicit input *again*", and start a new review phase. Which is lots of overhead, so we've been doing this ("this" being "extend a phase *if not enough input received*") for many years now. (Incidentially, the anti-abuse WG had to do the same thing for their current 2017-02 proposal - "not enough clear guidance to declare a result either way", thus, "extend") As soon as this is formally incorporated into the new policy text, I welcome a new round of discussion about the IPv6 PI policy (as stated in the review phase) - ideally, with no formal text to start with, but as a real *discussion* on "where do we want to go?". Formal policy text can come afterwards after there is some sort of rough agreement on the general direction. I'll reserve time for this on the agenda for Marseilles. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From nantoniello at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 01:10:11 2018 From: nantoniello at gmail.com (Nicolas Antoniello) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 21:10:11 -0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Randy and all, I'd really appreciate real comments on pros and cons about the proposal other from non constructive comments. Thanks in advance, Nicolas On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en > > i will not snark about history > i will not snark about history > i will not snark about history > i will not snark about history > i will not snark about history > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Mon Mar 19 09:56:23 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:56:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180319085623.GJ89741@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 09:10:11PM -0300, Nicolas Antoniello wrote: > I'd really appreciate real comments on pros and cons about the proposal > other from non constructive comments. I'm fairly sure Randy tried to politely bring across the message that "we had a global registry first, and then split it up into regional IRs, because that's what made sense, and still does". Besides that, discussion on that policy proposal takes place over at the LACNIC list, not here. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Mon Mar 19 10:08:56 2018 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:08:56 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <20180319085623.GJ89741@Space.Net> References: <20180319085623.GJ89741@Space.Net> Message-ID: hi gert, > I'm fairly sure Randy tried to politely bring across the message that > "we had a global registry first, and then split it up into regional > IRs, because that's what made sense, and still does". well, i could have been polite :) and i am less sure i want to strongly assert that the split still makes sense. do the regional empires really improve the operators' life? and, while indeed this is being discussed in lacnic, it does affect the ripe region. randy From gert at space.net Mon Mar 19 10:42:18 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:42:18 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: References: <20180319085623.GJ89741@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20180319094218.GN89741@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:08:56AM +0000, Randy Bush wrote: > and i am less sure i want to strongly assert that the split still makes > sense. do the regional empires really improve the operators' life? For an regional European operator, I certainly value being able to talk to someone in my timezone, talk to someone who understands the way Germans do business, etc. - read: the interaction with a regional IR (RIPE NCC) works well for us. "Timezone" and "cultural understanding" seem to be the important bits. Where the *numbers* come from, in the end, does not matter much - it could be a global pool everyone draws from (well, it is, but we pretend it isn't), but the local interaction is important. Also, this being a policy list, being able to discuss and agree on policy inside a region is complicated enough. Getting agreement globally on *details* seems to be near impossible ("principles" sort of worked out). > and, while indeed this is being discussed in lacnic, it does affect the > ripe region. True, but since a global proposal needs to reach consensus everywhere, we can be a bit lazy and wait to see how much momentum it gains in Lacnic, before formally entering the discussion here... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Mar 19 10:51:28 2018 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:51:28 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <20180319094218.GN89741@Space.Net> References: <20180319085623.GJ89741@Space.Net> <20180319094218.GN89741@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:42 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:08:56AM +0000, Randy Bush wrote: > > and i am less sure i want to strongly assert that the split still makes > > sense. do the regional empires really improve the operators' life? > > For an regional European operator, I certainly value being able to talk > to someone in my timezone, talk to someone who understands the way > Germans do business, etc. - read: the interaction with a regional IR > (RIPE NCC) works well for us. I am not sure if the language cultural difference between, say, Russian and Dutch are greater than British and American. As far as time zone concerned, RIPE region are crossing 8 different time zones, consider the biggest time difference you may have on the planet is 12, I am not sure that stands as well. > > "Timezone" and "cultural understanding" seem to be the important bits. > > Where the *numbers* come from, in the end, does not matter much - it > could be a global pool everyone draws from (well, it is, but we pretend > it isn't), but the local interaction is important. > > > Also, this being a policy list, being able to discuss and agree on policy > inside a region is complicated enough. Getting agreement globally on > *details* seems to be near impossible ("principles" sort of worked out). > > > > and, while indeed this is being discussed in lacnic, it does affect the > > ripe region. > > True, but since a global proposal needs to reach consensus everywhere, > we can be a bit lazy and wait to see how much momentum it gains in Lacnic, > before formally entering the discussion here... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Mon Mar 19 17:47:42 2018 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:47:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), etc. Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 March 2018. Thus: feedback please. Like - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the policy, and we should go there" - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..." - "never touch a working policy!" - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me" Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Mon Mar 19 18:05:18 2018 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:05:18 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> References: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> Message-ID: <96F06195-3651-4449-9455-8F68A7F64A6A@consulintel.es> Thanks Gert! Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes: https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Also, the complete text of the proposal is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 Now folks don't have any excuse to not comment ;-) Regards, Jordi ?-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering Fecha: lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018, 16:48 Para: Marco Schmidt CC: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear AP WG, On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), etc. Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 March 2018. Thus: feedback please. Like - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the policy, and we should go there" - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..." - "never touch a working policy!" - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me" Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From Ian.Dickinson at tfmnetworks.com Mon Mar 19 18:15:11 2018 From: Ian.Dickinson at tfmnetworks.com (Ian Dickinson) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:15:11 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: <96F06195-3651-4449-9455-8F68A7F64A6A@consulintel.es> References: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> <96F06195-3651-4449-9455-8F68A7F64A6A@consulintel.es> Message-ID: I'm firmly in the +1 "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the policy, and we should go there" camp. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg Sent: 19 March 2018 17:05 To: Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Thanks Gert! Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes: https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Also, the complete text of the proposal is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 Now folks don't have any excuse to not comment ;-) Regards, Jordi ?-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering Fecha: lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018, 16:48 Para: Marco Schmidt CC: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear AP WG, On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), etc. Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 March 2018. Thus: feedback please. Like - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the policy, and we should go there" - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..." - "never touch a working policy!" - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me" Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom.hill at bytemark.co.uk Mon Mar 19 18:27:17 2018 From: tom.hill at bytemark.co.uk (Tom Hill) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:27:17 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> References: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2d59383b-0a0a-aee9-3ab6-5af4568496f2@bytemark.co.uk> On 19/03/18 16:47, Gert Doering wrote: > Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes > - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. Jordi's proposed changes appear to be within the spirit of the established policy, and I believe they do help to clarify the current requirements, as was requested/intended. I'm in favour of updating the document. Kind regards, -- Tom Hill Network Manager Bytemark Limited http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From max at rfc2324.org Mon Mar 19 19:54:44 2018 From: max at rfc2324.org (Maximilian Wilhelm) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:54:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> References: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20180319185443.GL6458@principal.rfc2324.org> Anno domini 2018 Gert Doering scripsit: Hi, > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. > > This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE > meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy > talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR > account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), > etc. > > Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes > - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. > > [..] > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 March 2018. > > Thus: feedback please. > - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the > policy, and we should go there" This. Best Max -- They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Ben Franklin) From hunekm at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 10:23:21 2018 From: hunekm at gmail.com (Martin =?utf-8?B?SHVuxJtr?=) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:23:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> References: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> Message-ID: <126822479.3XxzehKBnu@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> Hi Gert, I don't see it as a major problem even though I would like to support this policy change, in the sake of equality when handling resources. Best Regards, Martin Hunek Dne pond?l? 19. b?ezna 2018 17:47:42 CET, Gert Doering napsal(a): > Dear AP WG, > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in > > IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. > This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE > meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy > talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR > account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), > etc. > > Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes > - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. > > [..] > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > before 23 March 2018. > Thus: feedback please. > > Like > > - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the > policy, and we should go there" > - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..." > - "never touch a working policy!" > - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me" > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Mar 20 15:26:40 2018 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:26:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Proposal Accepted (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification". The goal of this proposal was to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 The new RIPE Document is ripe-699 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699 We estimate that this proposal will take around two weeks to fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue Mar 20 21:42:08 2018 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Carlos_Fria=E7as?=) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:42:08 +0000 (WET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) (fwd) Message-ID: Greetings, Jordi, thanks for this work (and the diffchecker really helps!) :-) This seems to be the simplest approach (organisation=LIR). I don't believe we should keep the less explicit wording on the policy, thus i support this proposal. Best Regards, Carlos Fria?as (pt.rccn) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:05:18 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg Reply-To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Thanks Gert! Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes: https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Also, the complete text of the proposal is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 Now folks don't have any excuse to not comment ;-) Regards, Jordi ?-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering Fecha: lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018, 16:48 Para: Marco Schmidt CC: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear AP WG, On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), etc. Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 March 2018. Thus: feedback please. Like - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the policy, and we should go there" - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..." - "never touch a working policy!" - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me" Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Wed Mar 21 21:27:43 2018 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:27:43 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> References: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1521664063.2117622.1311459720.7298A8BE@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, at 17:47, Gert Doering wrote: > Thus: feedback please. Hi, I do agree with the concept of the policy as presented in the summary. The text seems (at a first reading) to confirm the stated intent. However, among the supporting arguments, only the first is clearly valid. To make it short, I don't recall being asked to return IPv6 allocations when performing a merger (M&A process) of 2 LIRs each one having v6 allocations. Not even when merging "already merged" LIRs. If such behavior does really occur under current policy, the proposal will prevent it from happening again, which is a good thing. Ah, and please fix typos :) -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN From chardwick3600 at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 21:28:50 2018 From: chardwick3600 at gmail.com (Christopher Hardwick) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:28:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] (no subject) Message-ID: What do you mean addres policy iv got alout to deal with and hundredes of documents to sighn send me the name of the policy you need -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raymond.jetten at elisa.fi Fri Mar 23 10:00:38 2018 From: raymond.jetten at elisa.fi (Jetten Raymond) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:00:38 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <7DC211EB-D6DC-4619-8C88-DD3B97B0FEAE@a2b-internet.com> References: <7DC211EB-D6DC-4619-8C88-DD3B97B0FEAE@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <2c0f33f6432b47689249fbb48378a282@elisa.fi> Yes, this seriously smells like someone really bored having too much time and looking for new opportunities, a quick count tells me that it will be 5 times harder to get policy developments through , if at all... Or can someone think of some actual benefits of this might have? /vanity... For Internal Use Only -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais Sent: 16. maaliskuuta 2018 16:20 To: Marco Schmidt ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" The question that came to mind was ... Is the IANA transition done yet ? Good. Let's start another one ... /ponder ... ?On 16/03/2018, 12:49, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Marco Schmidt" wrote: Dear colleagues, We would like to make you aware of a policy proposal that is being discussed in the LACNIC community, called "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)". You can find the proposal here: https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en This is a global policy proposal, meaning that it would apply to all five RIRs. However, each RIR community would first need to ratify an identical version of the policy before it could be implemented. No such policy proposal has yet been submitted in our service region. We will let you know of any further developments. You can find more on the global policy development process here: https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process/ Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From zsako at iszt.hu Sun Mar 25 19:11:26 2018 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:11:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) In-Reply-To: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> References: <20180319164742.GA14764@Space.Net> Message-ID: Dear all, > This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE > meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy > talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR > account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), > etc. Indeed, I think it is worth clarifying. > Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes The diff is very clear, thanks Jordi for this. Very helpful. > Thus: feedback please. > > Like > > - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the > policy, and we should go there" I am not sure what the original intent was. I would think nobody thought about the fact that an organisation can have multiple LIRs at the time the policy was accepted. Allowing a /29 per LIR instead of one per RIPE NCC member could be perceived as a "waste" of resources. However, I do not see any IPv6 scarcity coming up soon, and at the same time if it is justified, the organisation may get a block larger than a /29 even under the current version of the policy. Therefore I support the proposal due to that fact that it clarifies a possible ambiguity. Best regards, Janos > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > From president at ukraine.su Mon Mar 26 01:56:02 2018 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:56:02 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> Hi All, If they want to have only one registry in the planet - it is bad idea, I am strongly against it. If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all them - that's a very good idea, I support it. 16.03.18 13:48, Marco Schmidt ????: > Dear colleagues, > > We would like to make you aware of a policy proposal that is being discussed in the LACNIC community, called "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)". You can find the proposal here: > https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en > > This is a global policy proposal, meaning that it would apply to all five RIRs. However, each RIR community would first need to ratify an identical version of the policy before it could be implemented. > > No such policy proposal has yet been submitted in our service region. We will let you know of any further developments. > > You can find more on the global policy development process here: > https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process/ > > Kind regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > > From nantoniello at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 05:00:41 2018 From: nantoniello at gmail.com (Nicolas Antoniello) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 03:00:41 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Hi Max, This is definitely not for having only one RIR. The idea to discuss is (as you?ve mentioned in your second sentence) that this RIR runs in parallel (and operated by) all five RIRs and it would take care of allocations ment to be global (like conpanies that need IP and ASN resources in more than one region) or for future cases out of the actual five regions. Nicolas El El dom, 25 de mar. de 2018 a las 23:36, Max Tulyev escribi?: > Hi All, > > If they want to have only one registry in the planet - it is bad idea, I > am strongly against it. > > If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all > them - that's a very good idea, I support it. > > 16.03.18 13:48, Marco Schmidt ????: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > We would like to make you aware of a policy proposal that is being > discussed in the LACNIC community, called "Proposal to create a Global > Internet Registry (GIR)". You can find the proposal here: > > https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en > > > > This is a global policy proposal, meaning that it would apply to all > five RIRs. However, each RIR community would first need to ratify an > identical version of the policy before it could be implemented. > > > > No such policy proposal has yet been submitted in our service region. We > will let you know of any further developments. > > > > You can find more on the global policy development process here: > > https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process/ > > > > Kind regards > > > > Marco Schmidt > > Policy Development Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip4market.ru Mon Mar 26 13:35:47 2018 From: office at ip4market.ru (Staff) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:35:47 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> Hi everybody, On 26.03.2018 2:56, Max Tulyev wrote: > If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all > them - that's a very good idea, I support it. Another one IR is good idea and should be created. GIR with RIRs - this is good idea too. GIR should be created and be independent. And members of RIR should have ability where to have there resources support. I support. Juri. From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Mar 26 14:06:24 2018 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:06:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> Message-ID: This is a remarkably bad idea. It?s also likely to be unworkable. First, it?s not clear what problem (if any) this proposed new RIR would solve. Where?s the use case(s)? What are the requirements and why aren?t these being met by the existing RIR system? Each RIR produces address allocation policies which meet the needs of their respective communities. Have these somehow become defective? And if the regional policy in LACNIC (say) isn?t working for that part of the world, why can?t that be fixed directly without introducing this new (allegedly virtual) RIR and all the extra complexity that will create? Second, how will policies for this new RIR be created/implemented/maintaines/decided? How will they be aligned with those of the existing RIRs? How/when does an RIR decide to use this new RIR's address resources instead of its own to handle a request from an LIR? Third, why will addresses from this proposed new RIR be ?better? than those issued by the existing RIRs? What makes these addresses ?special?? Who needs them? Why? Fourth, why would an LIR choose to pay more for these ?special? addresses instead of just using the ones it?s already got from its RIR? Fifth, this proposal has great potential for unnecessary mission creep, adding more moving parts, forum shopping and so on. From hunekm at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 14:28:05 2018 From: hunekm at gmail.com (Martin =?utf-8?B?SHVuxJtr?=) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:28:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> Message-ID: <11057136.p9eMoh2gTp@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> Hi, Dne pond?l? 26. b?ezna 2018 13:35:47 CEST, Staff napsal(a): > Hi everybody, > > On 26.03.2018 2:56, Max Tulyev wrote: > > If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all > > them - that's a very good idea, I support it. > > Another one IR is good idea and should be created. > > GIR with RIRs - this is good idea too. GIR should be created and be > independent. And members of RIR should have ability where to have there > resources support. > > I support. I don't think that it is such a good idea. First of all, I can see the problem of such organizations which resident in multiple RIR regions, however I do think that I can be solved by bilateral agreement between current RIRs, rather than creating "GIR" (something between IANA and current RIRs. I can also see that someone might see it as an opportunity to get yet another resources, which they cannot from current RIRs. However there is no more IPv4 in IANA pool, so we would have to talk about IPv6 only "GIR" with only 32b ASN (in contrast with LACNIC policy text). And when I look at IPv6 policies at RIPE region (at least), there are quite open-minded with their allocation size. So do we really need yet another RIR? In my opinion No. It would solve just marginal problem which does have simpler solution. The solution might be an Inter-RIR status (e.g. source: RIPE-INTER-RIR) based upon agreement between LIR and multiple RIRs (in which case the resources would be assigned/allocated from one of them). Example: 1) AfriNIC based LIR would like to operate part of its network in RIPE region 2) LIR asks AfriNIC for approval to operate outside of RIR region and provides documentation with reasoning and corresponding RIR in which region LIR would like to operate 3) AfriNIC decides if the LIR's proposal is fine. 4) AfriNIC asks RIPE: Is it OK? May that LIR in this case operate this network in your region? 4) If both RIRs agrees on LIR's proposal, the AfriNIC marks LIR's resources accordingly (like moving it to separate DB or something like operates in: RIPE) Certainly no RIR would volunteer their IPv4 pool to new "GIR" as LACNIC proposal suggest and there is no more "global" IPv4 pool available... Sincerely Martin Hunek -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From malcolm at linx.net Mon Mar 26 15:21:08 2018 From: malcolm at linx.net (Malcolm Hutty) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:21:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> Message-ID: <3b71a837-fdae-248a-24b0-eb49903a9dc7@linx.net> On 26/03/2018 13:06, Jim Reid wrote: > This is a remarkably bad idea. It?s also likely to be unworkable. > > First, it?s not clear what problem (if any) this proposed new RIR would solve. Where?s the use case(s)? What are the requirements and why aren?t these being met by the existing RIR system? Each RIR produces address allocation policies which meet the needs of their respective communities. Have these somehow become defective? And if the regional policy in LACNIC (say) isn?t working for that part of the world, why can?t that be fixed directly without introducing this new (allegedly virtual) RIR and all the extra complexity that will create? > > Second, how will policies for this new RIR be created/implemented/maintaines/decided? How will they be aligned with those of the existing RIRs? How/when does an RIR decide to use this new RIR's address resources instead of its own to handle a request from an LIR? > > Third, why will addresses from this proposed new RIR be ?better? than those issued by the existing RIRs? What makes these addresses ?special?? Who needs them? Why? > > Fourth, why would an LIR choose to pay more for these ?special? addresses instead of just using the ones it?s already got from its RIR? > > Fifth, this proposal has great potential for unnecessary mission creep, adding more moving parts, forum shopping and so on. All very good points. All I can really add is to amplify on point 2: Proposing the creation of a "global registry" isn't really about saying "Let's have a GIR too". That's the simple bit. The real meat of proposing a GIR is saying "let's have a new institution, that has - THIS structure - THIS funding model - THIS secretariat/support/NCC equivalent - THIS type of PDP - THIS model for who participates in the PDP (both in theory and practice) etc. Until you have a proposal (at least in outline) for what that looks like, you don't *have* a proposal at all, just a vague idea of address management by Coca-Cola*. Malcolm * classical reference. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Mar 26 15:28:31 2018 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:28:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <11057136.p9eMoh2gTp@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> <11057136.p9eMoh2gTp@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> Message-ID: Hi What?s the difference between the below description and an inter-RIR transfer policy? And as current policy text, there is no restriction on using any of RIR resource on globe level. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 20:28 Martin Hun?k wrote: > Hi, > > Dne pond?l? 26. b?ezna 2018 13:35:47 CEST, Staff napsal(a): > > Hi everybody, > > > > On 26.03.2018 2:56, Max Tulyev wrote: > > > If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all > > > them - that's a very good idea, I support it. > > > > Another one IR is good idea and should be created. > > > > GIR with RIRs - this is good idea too. GIR should be created and be > > independent. And members of RIR should have ability where to have there > > resources support. > > > > I support. > > I don't think that it is such a good idea. First of all, I can see the > problem > of such organizations which resident in multiple RIR regions, however I do > think that I can be solved by bilateral agreement between current RIRs, > rather > than creating "GIR" (something between IANA and current RIRs. > > I can also see that someone might see it as an opportunity to get yet > another > resources, which they cannot from current RIRs. However there is no more > IPv4 > in IANA pool, so we would have to talk about IPv6 only "GIR" with only 32b > ASN > (in contrast with LACNIC policy text). And when I look at IPv6 policies at > RIPE region (at least), there are quite open-minded with their allocation > size. > > So do we really need yet another RIR? In my opinion No. It would solve just > marginal problem which does have simpler solution. > > The solution might be an Inter-RIR status (e.g. source: RIPE-INTER-RIR) > based > upon agreement between LIR and multiple RIRs (in which case the resources > would be assigned/allocated from one of them). > > Example: > 1) AfriNIC based LIR would like to operate part of its network in RIPE > region > 2) LIR asks AfriNIC for approval to operate outside of RIR region and > provides > documentation with reasoning and corresponding RIR in which region LIR > would > like to operate > 3) AfriNIC decides if the LIR's proposal is fine. > 4) AfriNIC asks RIPE: Is it OK? May that LIR in this case operate this > network > in your region? > 4) If both RIRs agrees on LIR's proposal, the AfriNIC marks LIR's resources > accordingly (like moving it to separate DB or something like operates in: > RIPE) > > Certainly no RIR would volunteer their IPv4 pool to new "GIR" as LACNIC > proposal suggest and there is no more "global" IPv4 pool available... > > Sincerely > Martin Hunek > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip4market.ru Mon Mar 26 15:30:20 2018 From: office at ip4market.ru (Staff) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:30:20 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <11057136.p9eMoh2gTp@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> <11057136.p9eMoh2gTp@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> Message-ID: <9e38b953-394c-fb92-e8b8-ad769fb60cf8@ip4market.ru> Hi, Some comments. It's good to have new kind of IR, not for requesting resources, but for managing them and keep things in order. Current RIRs are old enough, too bureaucratic, old school and so on. Also you don't need to take care about new GIR if you prefer to stay with your local RIR. Ability to make new IR will push on RIRs to make better services and less members fees. New IR will make more possibilities for new database management. Because current RIRs keep there databases in not optimal way because those databases keeps there structure from the time Internet was born. They are old enough, but they are too heavy to be rebuild-ed. It's a good opportunity to create something new, useful for ISP and their customers. Of couse this database should be redistributed and protected globally. Juri On 26.03.2018 15:28, Martin Hun?k wrote: > Hi, > > Dne pond?l? 26. b?ezna 2018 13:35:47 CEST, Staff napsal(a): >> Hi everybody, >> >> On 26.03.2018 2:56, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all >>> them - that's a very good idea, I support it. >> >> Another one IR is good idea and should be created. >> >> GIR with RIRs - this is good idea too. GIR should be created and be >> independent. And members of RIR should have ability where to have there >> resources support. >> >> I support. > > I don't think that it is such a good idea. First of all, I can see the problem > of such organizations which resident in multiple RIR regions, however I do > think that I can be solved by bilateral agreement between current RIRs, rather > than creating "GIR" (something between IANA and current RIRs. > > I can also see that someone might see it as an opportunity to get yet another > resources, which they cannot from current RIRs. However there is no more IPv4 > in IANA pool, so we would have to talk about IPv6 only "GIR" with only 32b ASN > (in contrast with LACNIC policy text). And when I look at IPv6 policies at > RIPE region (at least), there are quite open-minded with their allocation > size. > > So do we really need yet another RIR? In my opinion No. It would solve just > marginal problem which does have simpler solution. > > The solution might be an Inter-RIR status (e.g. source: RIPE-INTER-RIR) based > upon agreement between LIR and multiple RIRs (in which case the resources > would be assigned/allocated from one of them). > > Example: > 1) AfriNIC based LIR would like to operate part of its network in RIPE region > 2) LIR asks AfriNIC for approval to operate outside of RIR region and provides > documentation with reasoning and corresponding RIR in which region LIR would > like to operate > 3) AfriNIC decides if the LIR's proposal is fine. > 4) AfriNIC asks RIPE: Is it OK? May that LIR in this case operate this network > in your region? > 4) If both RIRs agrees on LIR's proposal, the AfriNIC marks LIR's resources > accordingly (like moving it to separate DB or something like operates in: > RIPE) > > Certainly no RIR would volunteer their IPv4 pool to new "GIR" as LACNIC > proposal suggest and there is no more "global" IPv4 pool available... > > Sincerely > Martin Hunek > From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Mar 26 16:28:34 2018 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:28:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)" In-Reply-To: <3b71a837-fdae-248a-24b0-eb49903a9dc7@linx.net> References: <69b4ec73-6a16-e656-6cf2-a2374ada3a3d@ukraine.su> <29ed5cb9-59c7-50c6-7e82-9281a03faae2@ip4market.ru> <3b71a837-fdae-248a-24b0-eb49903a9dc7@linx.net> Message-ID: > On 26 Mar 2018, at 14:21, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > > The real meat of proposing a GIR is saying "let's have a new institution, that has > > - THIS structure > - THIS funding model > - THIS secretariat/support/NCC equivalent > - THIS type of PDP > - THIS model for who participates in the PDP (both in theory and practice) > etc. > > Until you have a proposal (at least in outline) for what that looks > like, you don't *have* a proposal at all, just a vague idea of address > management by Coca-Cola*. Indeed. IIRC the same points were made when there were vague proposals about the ITU becoming an RIR ~10 years ago. Those proposals were a bad idea then. So?s this LACNIC proposal now. And for many of the same reasons. Sigh.